Valve fined $3 million AUS for refusing refunds and misleading customers - Polidicks

[url]http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/video-games-website-steam-fined-3-million-for-refusing-refunds-20161223-gthdux.html[/url] [QUOTE]Gaming company Valve Corporation has been hit with a $3 million fine after the Federal Court found its online games site Steam breached Australian Consumer Laws. The court imposed the maximum fine requested by Australia's competition regulator because of Valve's disregard for Australian law and lack of contrition.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"Valve is a United States company with 2.2 million Australian accounts which received 21,124 tickets in the relevant period containing the word "refund" from consumers with Australian IP addresses," Justice Edelman wrote in his judgement. "Yet it had a culture by which it formed a view without Australian legal advice that it was not subject to Australian law, and it was content to proceed to trade with Australian consumers without that advice and with the view that even if advice had been obtained that Valve was required to comply with Australian law the advice might have been ignored." A court found in May that Steam's website breached Australian Consumer Law because it stated consumers were not entitled to a refund and had no access to minimum quality guarantees. Steam must now introduce a compliance program and place an notice in size 14 type on its Australia website informing consumers about their rights. [/QUOTE]

Good, if you ask me it's probably a drop in the water compared to what they make in an hour but Valve needs to start facing actual consequences for their bullshit they're too fuckin' fat and happy

That's a pretty big notice, even if this is not the right text [t]https://jii.moe/41yivxIEM.png[/t] (1080p 100% Scaling, 14pt)

But Steam does offer refunds? How are they refusing refunds, I don't see anything in the article that says anything on where the "refusing refunds" come from, it even has sentence saying that it did give refunds to a bunch of people.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572488]But Steam does offer refunds? How are they refusing refunds, I don't see anything in the article that says anything on where the "refusing refunds" come from, it even has sentence saying that it did give refunds to a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] you technically have to honor all refunds which steam does not

-snip never mind-

[QUOTE=Egevened;51572493]you technically have to honor all refunds which steam does not[/QUOTE] Which is bullshit and is easily abused, as said during the first thread ever made about this stuff. I fully realized it's truth once the Killing Floor 2 stuff happened and people with 50+ hours, some in the hundreds, were refunding the game. Steam's system is about as fair as it can get IMO.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572488]But Steam does offer refunds? How are they refusing refunds, I don't see anything in the article that says anything on where the "refusing refunds" come from, it even has sentence saying that it did give refunds to a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] If you want to read [url]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778501-20160324-NSD886-14-ACCC-v-Valve-No-3-Judgment.html#document/p1[/url] [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] If I remember correctly, the SSA said there were no refunds at any exception even if they gave refunds, it's still misleading

[QUOTE=Egevened;51572493]you technically have to honor all refunds which steam does not[/QUOTE] But that doesn't even make sense, even physical stores won't honor all refunds. You won't get a refund for a piece of clothing that you've already worn for 2 years and is dirty and torn.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572529]But that doesn't even make sense, even physical stores won't honor all refunds. You won't get a refund for a piece of clothing that you've already worn for 2 years and is dirty and torn.[/QUOTE] You wouldn't get that in Australia either, but our comsumer laws are pretty strict here and customers have a huge amount of say in what actually happens. As I found out from one of my jobs, it's a good thing considering how scummy businesses can be. This is a pretty good video summing it up here: [video=youtube;uE8BB-ioNRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE8BB-ioNRw[/video]

[QUOTE=Animosus;51572541]You wouldn't get that in Australia either, but our comsumer laws are pretty strict here and customers have a huge amount of say in what actually happens. As I found out from one of my jobs, it's a good thing considering how scummy businesses can be. This is a pretty good video summing it up here: [video=youtube;uE8BB-ioNRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE8BB-ioNRw[/video][/QUOTE] still my favourite part of the video [t]https://jii.moe/E1PAxZUNz.png[/t] Jules you FUCK

[QUOTE=Animosus;51572541]You wouldn't get that in Australia either, but our comsumer laws are pretty strict here and customers have a huge amount of say in what actually happens. As I found out from one of my jobs, it's a good thing considering how scummy businesses can be. This is a pretty good video summing it up here: [video=youtube;uE8BB-ioNRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE8BB-ioNRw[/video][/QUOTE] Steam's refund police seems to match pretty much everything in the video, I'm still not seeing what they're getting fined over it.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572576]Steam's refund police seems to match pretty much everything in the video, I'm still not seeing what they're getting fined over it.[/QUOTE] they went to court in 2014 and have been ever since want to know when the agreements changed and allowed refunds, or can you look that up yourself

[QUOTE=simkas;51572576]Steam's refund police seems to match pretty much everything in the video, I'm still not seeing what they're getting fined over it.[/QUOTE] For this "A court found in May that Steam's website breached Australian Consumer Law because it stated consumers were not entitled to a refund and had no access to minimum quality guarantees. " While it may have changed now, this has been ongoing for a while.

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51572583]they went to court in 2014 and have been ever since want to know when the agreements changed and allowed refunds, or can you look that up yourself[/QUOTE] Oh so this is still ongoing from before they added all that stuff? I would have thought that since they implemented the stuff that they got taken to court over would have solved the issue.

Order 3 turns me on: [QUOTE]3. For a period of 12 months after 20 February 2017, for the benefit of Australian Consumers logging onto the Steam Website from a computer with an Australian IP address (based on the IP look up table available to the respondent current as at the consumer’s login), the respondent will publish on the home page of the Steam Website a link, in a typeface of at least 14 point Times New Roman, reading “IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT CONSUMER RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA”, which directs them to a notice in the terms set out in Annexure A1 (“Consumer Rights Notice”).[/QUOTE] The notice: [img]http://i.imgur.com/D65ktt3.png[/img] Damn, Valve won't be happy that it has to be in Times New Roman. Note Volvo have already indicated they're going to appeal. Many people think that ACCC / Australian Courts are going to have trouble getting Valve to actually enforce this, but they tied their balls in a knot by involving the multi hundred thousand dollar contracts they have for the Steam CDN and game servers like Dota 2 and CS GO in Australia.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572594]Oh so this is still ongoing from before they added all that stuff? I would have thought that since they implemented the stuff that they got taken to court over would have solved the issue.[/QUOTE] Implementation of ways for consumers to have rights was one of the requirements if the ACCC won, alongside the fines

[QUOTE=simkas;51572594]Oh so this is still ongoing from before they added all that stuff? I would have thought that since they implemented the stuff that they got taken to court over would have solved the issue.[/QUOTE] No - because they failed to meet the law back then, so thus must be punished - secondly, the new refund system still failed to meet the law.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51572603]:snip:[/QUOTE] Thanks, this makes a bit more sense, I'll probably hide it with css if it's too much out of the way [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;51572608]secondly, the new refund system still failed to meet the law.[/QUOTE] unsurprisingly

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51572608]No - because they failed to meet the law back then, so thus must be punished - secondly, the new refund system still failed to meet the law.[/QUOTE] How did it fail to meet the law? It seems like it fits pretty much everything that was mentioned in that video.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572619]How did it fail to meet the law? It seems like it fits pretty much everything that was mentioned in that video.[/QUOTE] Well because they're still not giving refunds or other remedies when games don't work, despite whatever refund system they have in place.

[QUOTE=Wormy;51572459]And it's just pocket change for Valve.[/QUOTE] They wanted to pay $250k, at least $3m hits them a bit harder.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51572622]Well because they're still not giving refunds or other remedies when games don't work, despite whatever refund system they have in place.[/QUOTE] But they do? Their rules say that they will give you a refund for any reason as long as it's within 2 weeks and with less than 2 hours of playtime. That's more than enough time to see if the game works or not.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572654]But they do? Their rules say that they will give you a refund for any reason as long as it's within 2 weeks and with less than 2 hours of playtime. That's more than enough time to see if the game works or not.[/QUOTE] 2 hours isn't enough time in my opinion. Game might work for the first few levels or so, then crap out. Didn't the new Hitman EP1 do this? ACL (Aust Consumer Law) requires that a remedy (or refund if a remedy cannot be made) be legally required if the product has a major failure (i.e. broken) within a reasonable amount of time. Don't get me wrong, Valve are doing much better than when this case started, but they're still not there.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51572662]2 hours isn't enough time in my opinion. Game might work for the first few levels or so, then crap out. Didn't the new Hitman EP1 do this? ACL (Aust Consumer Law) requires that a remedy (or refund if a remedy cannot be made) be legally required if the product has a major failure (i.e. broken) within a reasonable amount of time. Don't get me wrong, Valve are doing much better than when this case started, but they're still not there.[/QUOTE] 2 hours might not seem a lot, but if they were to make it longer, they'd then have to adjust that time based on the game itself, which would have to come from the developer or publisher, which would open a whole new can of worms. There are some games that you can complete fully in those 2 hours if rush enough. And there's also plenty of really cheap games that are shorter than 2 hours in their entirety.

[QUOTE=simkas;51572698]2 hours might not seem a lot, but if they were to make it longer, they'd then have to adjust that time based on the game itself, which would have to come from the developer or publisher, which would open a whole new can of worms. There are some games that you can complete fully in those 2 hours if rush enough. And there's also plenty of really cheap games that are shorter than 2 hours in their entirety.[/QUOTE] We're talking about complying with Australian Consumer Law. Issues with people refunding games they complete in under 2 hours don't have anything to do with that. If it takes longer than two hours to come up with an issue, then that is Valve's issue to deal with their publisher - they still have to issue a remedy under ACL.

Also your family share counts towards the two hours this is a curve ball, so I'll put it in my own terms of a reasonable consumer Let's say I buy a game, it's 50GB I spend two days downloading it over ADSL 2+ Meanwhile, anyone in my family share, for example a brother, who lives with a VDSL and downloaded it within a few hours, has already played two hours, nulling any possibility to refund it I run the game once, and it doesn't load, I the game so I can play it, and since I can't I should be able to refund it but with the current system, this isn't possible. This breaks the consumer policy since the product the product doesn't work for the reason I purchased it, and yet a refund is denied [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] It's also noting that valve do not need to change refunds globally, just only for Australia EA have already done this, you can find each regions rules, and the [url=https://help.ea.com/en-au/help/origin/origin/origin-au-returns-and-cancellations/]australia page[/url] [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] If you're going to quote the Great Game Garauntee [quote]The Great Game Guarantee is [b]in addition [/b]to your rights under the Australian Consumer Law described above[/quote]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51572708]We're talking about complying with Australian Consumer Law. Issues with people refunding games they complete in under 2 hours don't have anything to do with that. If it takes longer than two hours to come up with an issue, then that is Valve's issue to deal with their publisher - they still have to issue a remedy under ACL.[/QUOTE] They have everything to do with that. If a bunch of indie developers are going to get fucked because people will finish their games in a few hours and will get a refund because of Australian laws then fuck those laws and Valve should fight them to the end. [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Scratch.;51572717]Also your family share counts towards the two hours this is a curve ball, so I'll put it in my own terms of a reasonable consumer Let's say I buy a game, it's 50GB I spend two days downloading it over ADSL 2+ Meanwhile, anyone in my family share, for example a brother, who lives with a VDSL and downloaded it within a few hours, has already played two hours, nulling any possibility to refund it I run the game once, and it doesn't load, I the game so I can play it, and since I can't I should be able to refund it but with the current system, this isn't possible. This breaks the consumer policy since the product the product doesn't work for the reason I purchased it, and yet a refund is denied [/QUOTE] But the product has already been used by someone that you gave it to. You wouldn't return a piece of clothing because you bought it, gave it to someone else, they wore and tore it up by trying to say "yeah well I didn't wear this shirt so you have to refund it".

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51572717]Also your family share counts towards the two hours this is a curve ball, so I'll put it in my own terms of a reasonable consumer Let's say I buy a game, it's 50GB I spend two days downloading it over ADSL 2+ Meanwhile, anyone in my family share, for example a brother, who lives with a VDSL and downloaded it within a few hours, has already played two hours, nulling any possibility to refund it I run the game once, and it doesn't load, I the game so I can play it, and since I can't I should be able to refund it but with the current system, this isn't possible. This breaks the consumer policy since the product the product doesn't work for the reason I purchased it, and yet a refund is denied[/QUOTE] i thought the whole point of the steam refund system is that it allows you to refund after 2 hours/2 weeks for valid reasons tho [IMG]http://harry.tf/pics/2016-12-23_12-54-57.png[/IMG] notice how it says "typically" i refunded some game after 4 and a half hours once becuase it just completely couldn't launch and load past a certain point and valve allowed it because i said that it wouldn't work did i just get lucky? i thought that was pretty common of a game didn't work correctly

IIRC the two hour limit is for unconditional refunds. The Australian law specifically concerns games that don't work or are majorly broken, a problem which can be discovered after 2 hours of play. It makes sense to me that in this situation customers are entitled to a refund regardless of play time. I don't see why that should be problematic for Valve or the developers.